WHS doesn't work

[PJ87]

There's no way you can argue that that wasn't a simpler calculation than what we have now.

I can do the maths for score differential minus the score dif it's replacing divided by 8 to work out my cut now - but I need a calculator. And working out the score differential in the first place? No chance.

I'd say tho handicaps travel better now tho, more shots at different courses compared to a flat say 14 handicap everywhere

 

[Swango1980]

I would argue that some of the aspects are not exactly straightforward concepts and it doesn't surprise me that people struggle to understand them. When it's too taxing for the typical golfer to worry about we apply our own kind of 'layman's' meaning of it. Like, we know slope doesn't equal difficulty exactly, but there is a broad correlation that difficult courses tend to have higher slope ratings, so it's close enough to think of that way.

I don't even understand where 113 comes from as the mid-point number. They invented this calculation out of thin air, why would you pick the most awkward number possible? Why not make 100 the mid-point?? It's like they don't actually want the average golfer to understand it.

That sort of thinking though is what causes a lot of confusion in players minds, because it is misguided. It is exactly why many question the Slope of various courses, because they say something like "Course A is definitely harder than Course B, yet has a lower slope. Ridiculous". Basically, they just don't understand Slope.

As an example, Seacroft golf course in Lincolnshire is considered pretty tricky (I'm sure there are many even better examples, but this is just a local one from top of my head). Yet, even off Black tees, the Slope is only 122. That is a lot lower than my last course, which is much "easier", as it has a Slope of 130. However, The CR of Seacroft is 72.8 (Par 71). That is a lot higher than the CR of 66.8 (Par 70) at my old course. This makes more sense, but most casual golfers seem to completely ignore Course rating, and focus solely on Slope. They both need to be considered together.

Now, pre-April, my handicap would be 9 at Seacroft and 10 at my old club. That seems even more incredible, I get more shots at a course than many think is easier.

But, at least now with CR and Par taken into account, I'd get 11 at Seacroft and 7 at my old club. That makes much more sense, 4 shots less at a club that is much easier and shorter generally. To the average golfer, a pretty good indication on overall difficulty these days is just to see what happens to their course handicap, they don't really need to worry about Slope, let alone Course rating.

Also, why worry about the 113? I doubt the average golfer has ever seen the calculation with 113 in it? I don't know any golfer that has ever had to do the Course Handicap calculation themselves.

 

[Orikoru]

I'd say tho handicaps travel better now tho, more shots at different courses compared to a flat say 14 handicap everywhere

I said this a page or two ago, but yes, that used to be the case but with this latest change I don't think it is anymore. I played Verulam in March and was 17 PH there. If I went back today though I'd be on 15 PH. As we established earlier, Royston would have been 16 but it was 14. It most other local courses now there's hardly any variance, it's just 14 or 15. So that benefit of the system has actually been lost.

 

[PJ87]

I said this a page or two ago, but yes, that used to be the case but with this latest change I don't think it is anymore. I played Verulam in March and was 17 PH there. If I went back today though I'd be on 15 PH. As we established earlier, Royston would have been 16 but it was 14. It most other local courses now there's hardly any variance, it's just 14 or 15. So that benefit of the system has actually been lost.

It still has a benefit imo, i am now losing shots at local courses that are a lot easier than mine and getting more shots lol

Plus it's finally becoming a world handicap system rather than "oh this is what the yanks used to do"

 

[Orikoru]

Also, why worry about the 113? I doubt the average golfer has ever seen the calculation with 113 in it? I don't know any golfer that has ever had to do the Course Handicap calculation themselves.

I don't know if I'm on the spectrum or OCD but I just absolutely hate seeing a number like that. It's the worst one they could've picked. It makes me cringe.

 

[Swango1980]

Old system was very easy. However many shots under handicap you were, you'd get cut that multiplied by 0.3 or 0.2 etc depending what category you were in. As soon as I finished my round I knew what my cut was going to be. I understood that one.

It was easier once you allowed yourself to become educated in it. I was handicap secretary, and trust me, there were many many golfers that thought it was just as difficult as nuclear physics. All sorts of questions. Who gets 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, etc. What are the handicap ranges to get those various cuts, and what happens if I go from one handicap range to another midway through a cut. What are buffer zones for each handicap category. How is CSS worked out and hot does that impact the calculation. What about Exceptional Score reductions? It is all easy, but to many golfers who just hate talking numbers, you might as well be speaking to them in a foreign language.

WHS is mathematically just as easy. OK, you need access to an App if you want to have any idea how your handicap will change after a round (subject to PCC), as I'm sure no-one will remember their last 20 scores. But, App in hand, it is all very simple to understand, IF you are willing.

 

[Swango1980]

I don't know if I'm on the spectrum or OCD but I just absolutely hate seeing a number like that. It's the worst one they could've picked. It makes me cringe.

Writing that post then, and having to type 113, must have been very traumatic for you. I hope you feel better soon

 

[Alan Clifford]

It was a new thing spawned by WHS for the UK though. Its not that we had nothing - Sss was an ostensibly cruder precision with the same aim. Slope is more precise in being 3 significant figures rather than 1, sure. Whether that translates to a real world improvement in handicap equity is less clearcut.

The key question is, was the trouble worth the gain ?

Wasn't sss similar to course ratiing rather than slope rating?

 

[Alan Clifford]

So you're saying it's more difficult for unfit people than it is for fitter people. How would you factor that into a rating system?

Instead of rating the courses separely for women, we should have a set of tees for fit people and a set for unfit people.

 

[Alan Clifford]

That is a fine way of looking at it. And, for people with that mindset, the addition of CR-Par is irrelevant anyway. If you are just playing to a number, and know that number at each course, you really do not need to worry what your Course Handicap is.

But, a lot of people tally up their Stableford score as they go along, rather than keep track of their gross score, let alone being aware what gross score they need for each individual course. So, the recent changes basically satisfy everyone. The purists who focus on gross score and Score Diff, can still do so. And those that focus on Stableford score or Nett Score are also easily catered for

I focus on what gross score do I need to get a handicap reduction (even if it is just a miniscule one). This calculation needs to take into account a good one dropping off the 20th; if the 20th is the 8th best, is the 9th the same as the 8th. I do this to "machine precision" of course.

 

[Alan Clifford]

I would argue that some of the aspects are not exactly straightforward concepts and it doesn't surprise me that people struggle to understand them. When it's too taxing for the typical golfer to worry about we apply our own kind of 'layman's' meaning of it. Like, we know slope doesn't equal difficulty exactly, but there is a broad correlation that difficult courses tend to have higher slope ratings, so it's close enough to think of that way.

I don't even understand where 113 comes from as the mid-point number. They invented this calculation out of thin air, why would you pick the most awkward number possible? Why not make 100 the mid-point?? It's like they don't actually want the average golfer to understand it.

it's also strange that it's an integer and not 113.76544987 to many more decimal places if you are using machinge precision.

 

[Alan Clifford]

I said this a page or two ago, but yes, that used to be the case but with this latest change I don't think it is anymore. I played Verulam in March and was 17 PH there. If I went back today though I'd be on 15 PH. As we established earlier, Royston would have been 16 but it was 14. It most other local courses now there's hardly any variance, it's just 14 or 15. So that benefit of the system has actually been lost.

I'd guess then that the par doesn't reflect the hardness of the courses.

 

[doublebogey7]

I said this a page or two ago, but yes, that used to be the case but with this latest change I don't think it is anymore. I played Verulam in March and was 17 PH there. If I went back today though I'd be on 15 PH. As we established earlier, Royston would have been 16 but it was 14. It most other local courses now there's hardly any variance, it's just 14 or 15. So that benefit of the system has actually been lost.

You can keep saying it, bt it does not make it right. I am strugling to understand

Perhaps an easy example may help you. Pre 1st April, I'll wager that most of the time you got the same number of shots from your yellow tee's that you did from the whites. Were the two course od equal difficulty, of course not. Now you will be getting fewer shots from the yellows.

 

[D-S]

Maybe you should just have to adapt your par to the course rating, it might mean that you would get the odd short par 5 or on courses with higher CR than par and the odd long par 3 or long par 4 on courses with CR lower than par but it would not mean adjusting handicaps.

Also with the move to standardising pars, there will be quite a few tee sets with pars outside the old fixed parameters anyway.

 

[Orikoru]

You can keep saying it, bt it does not make it right. I am strugling to understand

Perhaps an easy example may help you. Pre 1st April, I'll wager that most of the time you got the same number of shots from your yellow tee's that you did from the whites. Were the two course od equal difficulty, of course not. Now you will be getting fewer shots from the yellows.

Well maybe this isn't happening for everyone, but I can only speak of my personal experience. I used to go and play other courses off yellows and get 16 or 17 shots quite often, a few higher than at my own course because my course has stupidly low ratings. Now when I look at these other courses in MyEG I pretty much just get 14 or 15 at all of them instead.

I'm not sure about your example. We never play yellows at my course because the course ratings were too low to even bother with it. Regardless of it being before or after the recent changes. Yes it looks like my course handicap would now be 12 off the yellows instead of 13 so it has gone down one. I'm not sure what this proves other than, as I said, our ratings are abnormally low.

 

[Swango1980]

Well maybe this isn't happening for everyone, but I can only speak of my personal experience. I used to go and play other courses off yellows and get 16 or 17 shots quite often, a few higher than at my own course because my course has stupidly low ratings. Now when I look at these other courses in MyEG I pretty much just get 14 or 15 at all of them instead.

I'm not sure about your example. We never play yellows at my course because the course ratings were too low to even bother with it. Regardless of it being before or after the recent changes. Yes it looks like my course handicap would now be 12 off the yellows instead of 13 so it has gone down one. I'm not sure what this proves other than, as I said, our ratings are abnormally low.

I suspect the courses you have experience on with this have unfortunately given you a false impression as to what the April changes would do. Because, golfers will generally see much bigger changes in handicaps going course to course. The simplest example to use is to take a 0.0 Index golfer. Before April, their course handicap would be 0 everywhere. Now, that is simply not the case, as it will be adjusted by CR-Par.

For yourself, Index 14.7. I've take a few courses with various perceived difficulties

My Course Whites, Pre April CH = 18, Current CH = 19
My Course Yellows, Pre April CH = 18, Current CH = 18

My Old Course Whites, Pre April CH = 17, Current CH = 17
My Old Course Yellows, Pre April CH = 17, Current CH = 14

My Mates Course Whites, Pre April CH = 14, Current CH = 12
My Mates Course Yellows, Pre April CH = 14, Current CH = 11

Carnoustie Championship, Blues, Pre April CH = 19, Current CH = 24

So, pre April, you'd probably see your Course Handicap be 16-18 at most course, but perhaps a bit more at very high slope courses and a bit lower at low slope courses (Slope at my mates course is 106). The range of courses above, your course handicap varies between 14-19. Now, your Course Handicap can generally change much more significantly. Courses above it ranged from 11-24.

Playing off different tees at the same club, I find that the Slopes are often quite similar simply because each course still has all the obstacles like trees, bunkers, penalty areas, green difficulties, etc. Therefore, pre April, many players would have the same CH regardless of the tees they played off, or at most it might change by 1. At my place, some people actually had a higher handicap off yellows, a shorter course. That no longer applies now, and the change in CH should probably make much more sense to golfers when they play off various tees at their own club. At my place, now everybody gets at least one extra shot off whites compared to yellows.

 

[D-S]

Well maybe this isn't happening for everyone, but I can only speak of my personal experience. I used to go and play other courses off yellows and get 16 or 17 shots quite often, a few higher than at my own course because my course has stupidly low ratings. Now when I look at these other courses in MyEG I pretty much just get 14 or 15 at all of them instead.

I'm not sure about your example. We never play yellows at my course because the course ratings were too low to even bother with it. Regardless of it being before or after the recent changes. Yes it looks like my course handicap would now be 12 off the yellows instead of 13 so it has gone down one. I'm not sure what this proves other than, as I said, our ratings are abnormally low.

At my course you would get 18 off whites, 16 off yellows and 13 off blues previously it would have been 17, 16 and 15.

 

[Steve Wilkes]

Well maybe this isn't happening for everyone, but I can only speak of my personal experience. I used to go and play other courses off yellows and get 16 or 17 shots quite often, a few higher than at my own course because my course has stupidly low ratings. Now when I look at these other courses in MyEG I pretty much just get 14 or 15 at all of them instead.

I'm not sure about your example. We never play yellows at my course because the course ratings were too low to even bother with it. Regardless of it being before or after the recent changes. Yes it looks like my course handicap would now be 12 off the yellows instead of 13 so it has gone down one. I'm not sure what this proves other than, as I said, our ratings are abnormally low.

But your 14.7 Index , why do you need 16 or 17 shots

 

[rulie]

Well maybe this isn't happening for everyone, but I can only speak of my personal experience. I used to go and play other courses off yellows and get 16 or 17 shots quite often, a few higher than at my own course because my course has stupidly low ratings. Now when I look at these other courses in MyEG I pretty much just get 14 or 15 at all of them instead.

I'm not sure about your example. We never play yellows at my course because the course ratings were too low to even bother with it. Regardless of it being before or after the recent changes. Yes it looks like my course handicap would now be 12 off the yellows instead of 13 so it has gone down one. I'm not sure what this proves other than, as I said, our ratings are abnormally low.

What has happened to the number of strokes of the players that you are playing with or against? Are you thinking that yours is the only one that has changed?

 

[Orikoru]

But your 14.7 Index , why do you need 16 or 17 shots

Because I'm crap at golf? It's just that my course is short so we have low course ratings, typically I tended to get more shots at other courses which were rated harder (because they're longer).

What has happened to the number of strokes of the players that you are playing with or against? Are you thinking that yours is the only one that has changed?

Why should I care what anyone else is doing?